Say it isn’t so!
Say it isn’t so!
Prior, 18-25, most prospects aren’t high quality (and presumably, somewhat actualized).
After 32, they’re so comfortable being single (and selfish) they cannot compromise for a spouse.
Sounds about right.
Lowest divorce risk. Nice.
To balance out this dismal talk of divorce risk, some positive advice.
Listen, my son! Listen, son of my womb!
Listen, my son, the answer to my prayers!
3 Do not spend your strength[a] on women,
your vigor on those who ruin kings….
Biblical MGTOW, hate to say it. Don’t sleep around, waste of energy.
It is not for kings, Lemuel—
it is not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,
5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.
6 Let beer be for those who are perishing,
wine for those who are in anguish!
7 Let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
Addictions are bad whoever is doing it.
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
The question is, can you ‘keep her’?
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
Sounds vaguely workaholic but this was before the washing machine when everything took ages plus she had servants. Will your future wife have servants? So it is reasonable to expect exactly the same output?
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Colour of rulers. Mistress of the house?
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
Power couple. Ambitious as a unit.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
Sage, stoic, talks but doesn’t nag aka is correct.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
That’ll be the day.
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
Romance within the marriage.
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
By the connection of marriage, an honourable spouse brings honour unto you, like a glow cast over your house.
If you don’t respect them before the wedding, don’t bother.
Yes, it’s really simple.
If you apply the Prisoner’s Dilemma from Game Theory. Which nobody seems to have done so I had a go. You can use this with credit given.
For those scoffing and saying “what’s good” it means good – for marriage.
As in, K-type.
Don’t pretend you’re not impressed.
Like hiring for a job, it’s all in the selection. You control your contribution (what you are and always have been) but also the selection of your co-contributor. Cold feet isn’t about marriage per se, it’s about marrying the wrong person. You need a mix of good-good for it to work as intended. Marriage is a contractual exchange between K-types. Broken marriages are the product of at least one broken party to it (but sometimes both). You must be good yourself to expect a good deal (unless they wish to create a long-suffering situation, the other party should recognize before marriage). You must have something to offer. A bad prospect has no business in marriage and should, if the MMP is true, be left on the shelf.
We care AS MUCH, sometimes more. The manosphere needs to get over itself on this one. Everytime I hear a man bitch that women don’t care about looks online, you can tell he’s an ugly motherfucker. It’s like a feminist whining about attention paid to pretty girls, it’s pathetic. Stop. Is/Ought.
Sperm = cheap
Eggs = expensive
Sex = valuable to men, women? Not so much. The one who cares less holds the power, right?
You’re swallowing what your grandmother told you – “looks don’t matter” (to women) and passing it off as your original belief because it serves your ego in sheltering you from the reality. It’s in the same category as JBY (Just Be Yourself) for advice that requires a disclaimer about a book long and a series of asterisks listing exceptions longer than the Game of Thrones book series. If random people keep pulling this weird, twisty lip face when you discuss dating, you’re probably ugly.
Don’t take my word for it, do the damn work and find out your number: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/an-easy-way-for-men-to-find-their-10-scale-value/ You’ve got a range of 1-2 based on external factors and the desperation of the prettier party.
This doesn’t make us women shallow anymore than not fancying landwhales makes you shallow. It’s nature. Everyone fancies attractive people. It’s evolution, it’s health, and it’s about the health of potential offspring.
Even when it comes down to the r-types, we have the Sexy Sons hypothesis. This overwhelmingly strong female attraction to appearance might dictate the bulk of their psychology, it’s that powerful. The stated exception is gold diggers, because plastic surgery is expensive and they’re rarely natural lookers themselves. The money overwhelms their disgust reflex and they’ve usually been around the block before settling.
Why do you believe women are special snowflakes when it comes to options? It’s ridiculous. Given two equally appealing choices, everybody, male female or alien would go for the more physically attractive. This was often swept under the rug because women had little historical say in mate selection (the betas and lower are the ones bitching about this now for that reason, they lost their power) and arranged marriages, complete with veil, meant if they knew they had a negative opinion of their husband-to-be, she had neither time nor purpose to point it out. It wasn’t as if women were expected to enjoy sex, was it? The woman’s sexual desire wasn’t a factor in the historical equation, so very little was written about it. Then courting came around, then dating and now hookup culture, where it’s plain to see if you pay attention. Look at any male model’s instagram account. Same as a woman’s, isn’t it?
Of course people care about looks when it comes to the opposite sex, that’s the difference between friends and more – do you find them physically attractive? It’s almost like boys in the manosphere haven’t heard the two ladders metaphor. This defines a big difference between male and female attraction mechanisms. If a woman fancies you, you’re on the prospect ladder. If she finds you ugly (that’s the brutal truth, it’s yay or nay) – you’re on the friend ladder. You ain’t never getting off, and the Friendzone is such a big deal online, because the boys in question refuse to believe women have eyes.
And dare to exercise a personal choice in whom to date.
You’re probably average, no shame in it, get over it. What do you think the Brad Pitt rule is about? Do you honestly think that guy needs a single bit of Game to have women interested in him? Pre-fame and money? Christian Bale met his wife when he was dirt poor and she traveled round with him. Any guesses why, children? [Clue: everybody has a personality, that doesn’t count as an answer.]
The starving artists stereotype is always drop-dead gorgeous. As is the hot nerd. And the hot librarian. And the hot businessman. And the hot gamer. It isn’t the context/skill/status that makes them hot, but adds to pre-existing hotness. And all pure stereotypes that appeal to women sexually, are already 10s….
Gee, I guess that’s a MASSIVE coincidence…
You can’t convince women to be turned on by losers (genetic or otherwise), neither can feminists or SJW freaks. Attraction isn’t a negotiation. I’m saying this to help you. Women didn’t lie, your mother probably lied but she has vested self-interests, it’s usually the media who lied to you. The world has always been this way. Prince Charming isn’t the Hunchback, he’s a physical specimen of 10 like the Princess. The Beast turned into a hottie at the end to match his fiancee. Look at all romance plots written by women, the guy is never ugly.
Of course women are shallow, when it comes to dating, that’s all it is – being really, really shallow. Until you meet someone’s mutual standard of shallowness. One of the few totally valid PUA criticisms – they look at their actions, including external factors like income, and never pause to consider their physical league. If women seem to have a “bitch shield” around you, and you aren’t being rude, you’re probably swimming in the wrong gene pool. People with status abhor being approached by the SMV/MMV equivalent of peasants. This goes for men too, don’t start on a misogynistic rant about how all women are bitches and blaming them for your problems. If you were unemployed and walked up to random successful men in swish suits in coffee shops and in the street, they’d be disgusted too. You gotta have something to offer those people and bring to the table. What’s relevant in business? Contacts, contracts, money, skills. What’s relevant in dating? Looks, looks, looks, and a wildcard, like maybe you have a sense of humour like most people on the planet. You know that thing where everyone laughs at the hot girl’s non-jokes? It’s cos you don’t really see past the packaging, isn’t it? Women online are upfront about this, who they crush on and who’s the hottest out of XYZ options and men have the temerity to call us superficial…. nah, not gonna cut it, men discuss passing women in the street with the same lack of respect and when men have topless calenders and read lad’s mags at work, inappropriate doesn’t cut it either. We’re all adults here, opinions are okay. Alpha/quality males are serene about this and acknowledge quality women have options too and the non-quality proles of both sexes will daydream (few are foolish enough to try and play out of their league).
If you dare try and pull that feminist shit like “we don’t like being judged, it hurts our feelings” – erm, how do you think we feel, being literally marked on a scale when we walk down the street, like produce? Which sex is more sexualised in the media? Again, grow up. Adults judge things all the time and it’s a good thing. If you fall short, that’s your personal issue, not the people judging you and finding you wanting. You didn’t bring it to the table. You weren’t tall enough for this ride, whatever. Offer rejected. Nothing personal. You’d be a glad of a “bitch shield” if it was your wife maintaining it, in fact, you’d rely on it. That’s what really gets us – you expect us to make an exception for you and turn around and complain about special snowflakes. Does that make your hypothetical wife a bitch? Nope, she’s a quality woman who doesn’t fall for that casual nonsense we call pick-up, you’re just crybabies that spitting certain lines isn’t like a cheat code for sex with any random woman.
Short-term, who cares, get rejected thousands of times for all it matters. I don’t speak to those guys who wanna die alone because it fulfills some mythic complex about Eve and the wicked temptation of women.
For long-term, you need to redpill and look at the data. Assortative mating. People end up (most of the time don’t anecdote me) with someone of similar attractiveness to themselves. Not higher. Not lower. Similar. This way, neither party feels like they’re losing out on the deal of the relationship, getting the wedding is the easy part, maintaining the marriage requires effort on both sides. Sure, she loses post-pregnancy weight for you, but you can’t get a beer belly and wonder why she keeps getting headaches. It’s an exchange, no woman will ever be your mother (a mother figure you wanna fuck, creep alert!) unless she’s a co-dependent drip you don’t respect or trust. Long-term it’s an exchange of genetic material, the most serious decision you’ll ever make, an Eloi with a Morlock is poorly matched and won’t stick around for long and no, celebrities aren’t a rule or proof for anything in the real world.
Nothing wrong with being average, it isn’t your spiritual worth as a person, but it is your real SMV and likely highly correlates to your MMV, male or female, gay, straight, bi or whatever. Better happily matched, once your ego is over the shock, than #foreveralone because you had the male equivalent of Cinderella syndrome. Notches aren’t alpha, that’s a lie from PUAs trying to sell their book/site/method by spinning out notch numbers (not accounting for quality), your life isn’t a video game where you score for your score and if you’re top of the leaderboard you’re Mostest Alpha Man; it’s getting the Best woman in a social circle (the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy) and keeping her is what an alpha male does.
Three considerations are missing;
It is THESE things, which kept people in line and made them treat marriage seriously.
I would endorse a two-marriage cap for life (excepting widowhood). Fool me once… choose wrong twice….
Both sexes had legal protections when times were good.
Age limits to make a choice of marriage partner accounted for maturity, income, religion etc. Good matches.
From a female perspective (wait this isn’t vapid), I think women have displayed some new male-like traits in selection for good reason e.g. more emphasis on appearance, fitness and wit, because the excessive overpopulation has left us so many to choose from. We’ve always been as shallow as men (if you had to choose between two people equal in other ways but one is hotter everyone would choose the hot one come on), but now we have a lot more choice and men have to jump hoops but for dates instead of courtship and marriage. Women aren’t locked down into those choices and assume fertility is a given because of our sex. Most men nowadays are fat or not fit, so the healthy toned man is maximising his fitness signal, similar with symmetrical, masculine appearance in a world of antiandrogens, phyto and xenoestrogens. It’s like a nuclear bomb of a signal in that case:-
PC quashes genuine wit and makes it shine the brighter in bleak times and so on.
Lust is the desire to breed after all and we shouldn’t forget this, it can be a positive force. If you want to incentivize marriage, make a man invested in his children (and certain of paternity because he loves his wife) and a woman invested in her husband and his attentions (and her children because duh).
As for the warning at the end, the traditional women don’t live in that traditional society. The men are too poor to even consider marriage. Hardly a choice. A woman who waits around is going to be kept waiting forever because men think they can get the same quality of woman regardless of age.